seanbaity-blog

[seanbaity-blog]

Is Gender a Social Construct?

Much has been made of this topic in recent history. There exist those who vehemently view the concept as oppressive and unnecessary, and those who defend the existence of gender as a point of fact. To answer the question personally, in some ways such as in identification and classification of normal behaviors of the sexes, I am inclined to say yes, it is a societal construction. There seem to be a great many in various communities that agree with that sentiment as well, and some have even begun assembling lists of various "non-traditional" genders. However, this compels me to ask: for what good is it? What use are these terms? If individuals feel oppressed by the titles of "male" and "female," how are terms like "demi-vapor" and "magigender" any less restrictive or confounding? If the goal is to dismantle the construct of gender, why would we willingly add to it instead? There are nearly 8 billion individuals on this planet, likely feeling 8 billion individual ways. Rather than assigning them a gender, a title, a feeling, etc, perhaps we should instead allow them to simply be, free from assigned titular obligation and recriminations.

[seanbaity-blog]

Common Ground

Can Conservatism And Liberalism Find Unity Against Nationalism?

There are a great many -ists and -isms in the world. Nearly all of them serve little true function other than substituting for a terminal lack of distinguishable personality. There are, however, a few very popular and recently relevant -isms that I would like to address: Conservatism, Liberalism, and Nationalism. Any definition I would offer of the various ideological belief systems of either Conservatism or Liberalism would, undoubtedly, incur the rancor of at least one insufferable contrarian with their own “unique” set of worldviews and associated descriptors. Since I have neither the patience or inclination to suffer such desperate fools, suffice to say that Conservatism describes the right-wing belief in tradition and social norms, and Liberalism is it's mirror, describing belief in progress, tolerance, and changing of societies. There are as many factions of these two vague terms as there are accompanying -isms, each with their own spin on what defines their belief, and all boiling down to the core of Right and Left. These two ideologies have been in engaged in philosophical warfare since their inception and, contrary to nearly every other commentator, I say, “Good.” It is civil to call for peace among differing philosophies, but the truth of the matter is that it is far too much fun. There is little more joy to be had in this life than the sensation of eviscerating one's prey with superior intellect, and who am I to call for the end of such pleasure? The brain, like any muscle in the human body, atrophies and dies if not used. (R.I.P. Sean Hannity) Debate is the ultimate hedonism, argument the finest orgasm. Vivo! But like any pleasurable activity between consenting adults, there are those who seek to ruin it. Which brings us to our third -ism. Unlike the previous two, I may define Nationalism in any way that I so choose because it has no definitions. The word itself suggests no ideology or belief systems, but rather is a tool utilized by demagogues, supplemented with eccentric terminologies and vapid idiosyncrasies. It isn't a set of ideas, principles, policies, or systems. Much like it's most visible current user, it is loud, annoying, and entirely devoid of any substantial thought. Words are given empty definitions, (“American,” “loyalty,” “news,” “reality,” etc.) and patriotism is identified as what the leader says it is, and so on and so forth until you find yourself in Birkenau while everyone outside is smiling. Nationalism is a feeling, no more and no less. It says nothing, and it says it deafeningly. Empty sentiment for empty brains. Unlike both Conservatism and Liberalism, Nationalism stands for nothing and no one apart from the whims and fancies of it's propagator. It seeks not to govern, but to control. The priest which interrupts our rather enjoyable orgy. It is with this understanding that I must declare my abounding disappointment with the conservative movement. Their willingness to capitulate any modicum of integrity or intellectual fortitude they may have possessed in favor of Nationalist dogma and a wink from the new President is as repellent as the Magistrate himself. Cowards. The National Review, which I freely admit my reading of, used to have a desire to espouse and hold steadfast an idea, but now functions as little other than an outlet of dimwitted propaganda for the illiterate. It is a far cry from the vision of it's impressively articulate progenitor. Bill Buckley Jr. would no doubt be rolling in his grave were he not currently occupied shoveling sulfur. The American Left is not nearly as free of indictment as it believes itself to be. The much-touted “liberal elites” and their famous accompanying pseudo-intellect has, for too long, been as masturbatory and self-serving as the Nationalist parasites which now infest the body of American politics, the difference being only that the leftists are guilty of being far lazier. Rather than elevate and engage the argument, they settled for smugly agreeing with one another over cigarettes and lattes. So, after years of inadequacy and malaise, they expect now to invigorate the righteous indignation of the public morality. Idiots. The one factor which applies to both the left and right now is that neither is capable of engaging in that joyous combat which offers such satisfaction with the Nationalist forces in this country. As Nationalism has nothing to say, there is nothing that can be said to it. Not by the right nor left. Nothing cannot be argued with, cannot be debated. Nothing cannot be the foundation of a national conversation. Nature abhors a vacuum. The central question must now be asked. Can Liberalism and Conservatism find unity against Nationalism? The election of 2016 cannot be called a victory for either school of political thought. I would argue it cannot be called a victory at all. It also abundantly clear that the new President is not a Republican, a republican, or conservative in any sense of the word, despite his self-proclaimed moniker, and he is dragging the true members of that ideology into his own vacuous worldview. Meanwhile, Liberalism stutters, shakes, and cries foul the cruel reality that no-one will listen to their cause as it comes too late, however noble it may be. Whatever their differences, and they are numerous, the one agreement which they have with each other, and it should be noted, is that both Liberalism and Conservatism know that populist rhetoric is not only wholly inadequate as a political system, but a dangerous and self-destructive one. Knowing this, can these two opposed forces come together and abandon temporarily their singular and self-serving agendas and actually do what they have both, for so long, claimed a desire to do? Serve the American public? The answer to this new and fundamental question is that I do not know. I lack the power to bridge the odious divide that separates these two formerly dominant schools of thought, though perhaps each can find a minimal respite with one another as they pick up the pieces of their dead and defeated movements. Ironically, if they are to survive, it seems they must, lest they willingly banish forever the possibility of the American intellect from the political realm. I speak for none but myself when I say that I would welcome such an acrimonious unification, if for no other reason than the nobility of it's cause. Whether it is possible for such a benevolent cooperative effort in this strange new world we inhabit, I cannot say, but I would certainly revel in being rid of vacuous abhorrence which awaits our near future. Only then, with the fall of the heinous and idiotic perversions which now populate our senses, can we go back to hating each other like civilized people.

[seanbaity-blog]

Debate

There is a pervasive sentiment that all good debate must be civil, well-mannered, and inoffensive to all parties involved. When I hear this cliche expressed, I find myself wondering if anyone's erroneous positions have ever been altered by a cordial handshake and a friendly smile. I estimate none. Despite what are undoubtedly fine intentions, real debate is not a genteel dinner conversation, but rather more akin to ravenous dogs devouring one another. Bloody, desperate, and piercing. It can be tempting to perceive debate between two opposing perspectives as elevated intellectual discourse, and sometimes it is expressed as such, but the truth is far baser than we care to concede. It is war, and like war, neither can be truly satisfied until their opponent lies mangled and disfigured on the grand stage of the public consciousness. This may be an unpalatable truth, but it is nonetheless precisely that. To fully realize this truth is to begin to learn how to debate suitably. To exult in this truth is to begin to debate well.

[seanbaity-blog]

God Votes Red

There is a popular sentiment among conservatives that God is a Republican. I am inclined to agree.

"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you." - Deuteronomy 20:10-17

[seanbaity-blog]

Nature

Everyone loves nature, unless it's too natural. Just as people love wildlife, until it's too wild. Or lively. People would prefer Disney's Animal Kingdom to the animal kingdom, plastic and polyurethane to flesh and teeth. People love to gawk and wax poetic at the beauty of the natural world, so long as they feel safe in it. So long as it poses no threat. So long as it is tame. The natural world rebels against this notion with marvelous violence, the only universal language the human race can understand. Claws and teeth, venom and spines, the barren dryness of the deserts, the crushing pressure of the oceans. The wild defends it's right to be wild with righteous ferocity. Beautiful things must be dangerous things, lest they be ravaged and desecrated by that savage ugliness which claims dominance of the earth.

[seanbaity-blog]

The State of the Union, 1776-?

Charles the Second ruled the Kingdom of Spain from 1665 to 1700. He was inbred, cretinous, deformed, frail, and disabled in nearly every way. His remarkable lack of fitness for governance was common knowledge. The court of Spain knew it, all the courts of Europe knew it, and even the lowly commoners were vaguely aware their magistrate was unqualified for leadership. Alas, one cannot choose one's king and so he led his country into crisis, war, famine, and ruin. He died at 38, insane, gangrenous, and diseased, the last of his line. Yet, despite the best efforts of Charles "the Bewitched," Spain persevered, inherited new royals, and persists still to this day. Lucky for Spain.

Luckier us, then, that we get to choose our rulers, and hold them accountable for their actions, unlike Mad King Charles. We The People alone, by the grace of our Constitution, guide our nation and control our fate, so that we never must suffer at the hands of our own Charles the Second.

Bearing this in mind, it is entirely understandable that so many citizens have expressed their discontent at the election of Donald J. Trump as President, and with the coming ascension of the President-elect to the throne of the Empire, a great multitude have declared their opposition, rightly so, to his ideals and policies, vowing to oppose his governance. To halt the crypto-Nazi agenda which he and his henchmen espouse so transparently. To preserve the democracy in which we live.

Knowing full well the sincerity and correctness of these sentiments, I am unfortunately burdened with the task of informing you of the central governing philosophy of every presidential administration since Washington: "Go fuck yourself."

There is an attractive and pervasive myth that governments are held accountable by the People, by Truth and Justice.This is, of course, demonstrably false. Governments are accountable to no one but themselves, and the Constitution, our Holy Scripture, is little more than toilet paper for a junior representative.The righteous outrage of the American people is noble, honorable, necessary, remarkably similar to the petulant cries of an infant, desperate for the teat of it's matron. Equally defiant, equally powerless.

We avail ourselves of the comforting notion that somehow We The People exercise control over the governmental body, but the truth is simpler and more unpalatable. You do not have the power. You do not have the armies, or the money, or the bombs. The United States government does not fear the people. It barely takes the time out of it's day to respect them. Despite the repeated assertions of the South, Texas, and the National Rifle Association, there will never and can never be a “glorious rebellion of the People to overthrow a tyrant.” The United States is entirely too powerful for such ridiculous notions. Every great act of legislation, every meaningful reform, has been at the generous benevolence of our overlords. Your righteous protests have yielded results simply because the governing body chose to appease you so that you would be silent for a time. ("Fine, have some candy and go to your room." And you do, obediently, feeling victorious.)

There is no overarching police force which compels government to do what is Right. Presidents and Congresses can, against the wishes of every citizen, do whatever they please, whenever they please. Because they are powerful, and you are not.You may then choose to believe that the American people would never stand for this, that they would somehow resist. The truth is, again, simple and distasteful: You don't care, at least not when it seems to matter. You'd rather watch television. And why shouldn't you? Believing that we are a democracy, and that good eventually will triumph over evil, and the people will be victorious makes us content to allow the subjugation to continue. The illusion of democracy is so much more appealing than the pain of your subservience. If religion is the opiate of the masses, democracy is the sedative.

The sacred institution of the election, the "democratic process," is a farce. All the world is a stage. The idea that the People choose their king is cotton candy. Sugar and heart disease. Elections are bought and paid for by the highest bidder, whether it be in monetary or popular currency. Candidates are sold like Cheerios and Lucky Charms. Faces are plastered all over your television and phone screens. Team A convinces you to despise Team B, regardless of the fact that neither is too unalike, nor overly incentivized to care about you, and once you feel sufficiently that you matter, Congress chooses anyway. Democracy in action.

I say this, not to quell your protest and indignation, but merely to inform you of your place from the perspective of your government, whether you voted for it or not, whether you agree with it or not. You are powerless, constantly begging and awaiting the graciousness of your benefactor. A mongrel pacing around the dinner table, lusting for scraps.

The President-to-be is a man with egregiously abhorrent ideas. He is as idiosyncratic as he is idiotic. He seems more akin to Charles the Second than he does with Ronald Reagan. The President-Elect may very well be unfit. He may be unqualified. He may bring crisis, war, and ruin to our country. But, like Charles the Second, he is still king. Just as Clinton would have been queen. The only difference is that you would have been a happy slave as opposed to a malcontent one.

So, feel free to march, share your Huffington Post articles, and call out to the silent void for outrage and justice. Your government will respond to you as it always has.

This is the truth, and that churning indignation in you stomach confirms it. You are the audience, not the actor. You are the servant, not the served. You are the slave, not the master. You are the powerless, not the powerful. The one question that you can answer upon realizing this is: What will you do now?

Your government has a suggestion for you.

"Go fuck yourself."